The Red Knights

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
I guess the bit that jumped out at me was: "follow MUST simply because they're the only group out there trying to do something." (I didnt copy the word blindly for the purposes of making myself look better.)

There is a bit of that though.

The way I see it MUST is a pretty broad church. I dont agree with everything it comes out with, and I agree with a lot of criticisms people make of it. But I leave my money in there because at the end of the day I believe in its goals.
 

Sultan

Gentleness adorns everything
Joined
Sep 1, 2004
Messages
48,569
Location
Redcafe
The way I see it MUST is a pretty broad church. I dont agree with everything it comes out with, and I agree with a lot of criticisms people make of it.
Quite

People like Cider go the other way and criticise everything MUST.
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
Well, if you can pay for it then there's nothing inherently wrong with debt. The rate of return just needs to be higher than the interest payments; you'll find that many huge corporations run signficant debts.

I'm not advocating what the Glazers do, by the way, but I'm simply pointing out that debt is only a problem when you can't pay it anymore.
Debt as an investment can be a sensible move.

But what have we got out of the debt we're currently paying off? Er... the Glazers.
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
The way I see it MUST is a pretty broad church. I dont agree with everything it comes out with, and I agree with a lot of criticisms people make of it. But I leave my money in there because at the end of the day I believe in its goals.
It is indeed a broad church. I don't agree with everything the organisation does.

But the other point is that it is a democratic organisation. For all ciderman's personal bile towards its CEO and the rest of the board, I doubt he's taken the opportunity to either vote or stand against them. If United fans don't like the direction MUST is taking, get involved in taking it in the direction you want it to go.
 

ciderman9000000

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
29,640
Location
The General
Cider, you have focused here pretty much exclusively on criticising MUST and the Red Knights. Coherent and fair criticisms I would say on the whole.

Can you elaborate though on what you think the Glazers have done well? Why they are good owners? So far we have: doesnt interfere with SAF, I put it to you that nobody would, so I dont give them too much credit for that; have spent money on transfers, whoopie shit, its our money, how much gratitude to they want for that?

What else is there?

Is your position, Glazer is a great owner? And if so, why?
Or is it, he isnt a bad owner, in which case, fair enough, but what do you say about the money they have taken out of the club for themselves? Just the price of business? No more than would have been paid out in dividends anyway? They earnt the money fair and square by working very hard to secure new sponsorships and the like?
Yes, I think the Glazers have been good owners for various reasons.

Firstly, let's not just scoot over the fact that they support SAF. It's an obvious thing to say that no owner would interfere with the managerial position whilst SAF is in charge, but the Glazer ownership goes further than that evidenced by the manager himself praising them on a number of occasions whilst comparing them favourably to previous owners. He asks for money and he gets it, no questions asked, that's what SAF reports; he tells us that this just hasn't been the case under previous regimes.

Again, secondly, you seem to be just scooting over the matter of the transfer budget, seemingly because it isn't convenient to recognise the making available of funds as the hallmark of a decent ownership. We've signed some fantastic players under the Glazers and spent a lot of cash in the process; the result being that the various teams SAF has built during this era have been incredibly successful, and I don't think poor owners would have been able to facilitate such success. We're competing with two immensely financially doped teams in City and Chelsea, and often we're coming out on top; huge credit to SAF of course, but credit also to those in charge above him.

Thirdly, the Glazers have organised United like never before as a globally reaching commercial giant. They've revolutionised the way the club creates income on a commercial basis and, again, it's all too easy to say that any owners could have done this; the Glazers have done it, and they must get credit for that. The result is that Manchester United is the most valuable and recognisable brand in the history of modern sport, and the money generated from this achievement much more than accounts for any money leaving the club through debt repayment.

It is my view that the Glazers vision for United as a commercial mega-brand will continue to grow and communications and media technology improves around the globe, especially so in developing countries where support for United is at an all time high. The growth we've seen in this area so far is just the beginning of the greater scheme; the Glazers hope to make–perhaps already have made–Manchester United the biggest and most viewed billboard in the history of the human race, and with such an achievement comes great wealth and great success. From a business perspective at least, this is very good work.

Finally, I have much respect for the way the Glazers have conducted themselves professionally throughout constant pressure from groups, most prominently from MUST, who's sole aim is to discredit and disrupt the club's ownership via any means possible, means which include but are not exclusive to: incredible distortion of the truth, relentless and aggressive propaganda campaigns, incitement to boycott, death threats and systematic incitement of blind and unbridled hatred. Throughout all this the club's owners just kept getting on with their jobs, kept their heads down, weathered the storm and, rather than confronting the aggressors head-on with matching dirty tactics, opted instead to win favour through the facilitation of the continued success of the football club both on the pitch and in a the pure business sense. It cannot have been by any means an easy task, but the Glazers have brought the club through this turmoil and out the other side entirely unscathed; I commend them highly for this.

I feel that, though by no means perfect, the Glazers represent a club ownership whereby the positive far outweighs the negative, and for this reason I believe that they'll be looked back upon in hindsight as decent owners.
 

ciderman9000000

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
29,640
Location
The General
It is indeed a broad church. I don't agree with everything the organisation does.

But the other point is that it is a democratic organisation. For all ciderman's personal bile towards its CEO and the rest of the board, I doubt he's taken the opportunity to either vote or stand against them. If United fans don't like the direction MUST is taking, get involved in taking it in the direction you want it to go.
Why would I get involved in a an organisation that I disagree with on a fundamental level? Better to sit back and allow them to further alienate themselves through poor management, wavering moral virtue and embarrassing actions than to jump on board and try to change them from within. I haven't signed up to the BNP based on similar reasoning.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Cheers for the considered response.

I stick to my guns in glossing over your first two points. SAF praising the Glazers doesnt mean anything to me, any more than him telling a journalist that he thinks Evans is the best defender in the world means anything. NOBODY WOULD GIVE FERGIE SHIT. And I dont believe transfer funds are more readily available now that they were. I just dont. Net spend, Glazers have not been hugely generous, SAF has been hugely shrewd, and that is even taking into account massive cockups like Berbs. See earlier point about Ronaldo money.

Point 3: fair enough. United were already one of the biggest and most recognisable sports brands in the world. But yes, I can see this point is the big hope for them having a positive legacy.

Point 4: I guess if you live in Tampa, almost never come to games, never give interviews and never engage with fans, that might come across to some as commendable behavior. Dont agree with you on that point. I take it as evidence of their lack of interest in the views of the fans, their total focus on making money.

OK I think I am ready to leave it here with you now, and agree to disagree.
 

Utd heap

Models for Coin.
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
21,243
Cheers for the considered response.

I stick to my guns in glossing over your first two points. SAF praising the Glazers doesnt mean anything to me, any more than him telling a journalist that he thinks Evans is the best defender in the world means anything. NOBODY WOULD GIVE FERGIE SHIT. And I dont believe transfer funds are more readily available now that they were. I just dont. Net spend, Glazers have not been hugely generous, SAF has been hugely shrewd, and that is even taking into account massive cockups like Berbs. See earlier point about Ronaldo money.

Point 3: fair enough. United were already one of the biggest and most recognisable sports brands in the world. But yes, I can see this point is the big hope for them having a positive legacy.

Point 4: I guess if you live in Tampa, almost never come to games, never give interviews and never engage with fans, that might come across to some as commendable behavior. Dont agree with you on that point. I take it as evidence of their lack of interest in the views of the fans, their total focus on making money.

OK I think I am ready to leave it here with you now, and agree to disagree.
Well said.
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
Why would I get involved in a an organisation that I disagree with on a fundamental level? Better to sit back and allow them to further alienate themselves through poor management, wavering moral virtue and embarrassing actions than to jump on board and try to change them from within. I haven't signed up to the BNP based on similar reasoning.
Finally, I have much respect for the way the Glazers have conducted themselves professionally throughout constant pressure from groups, most prominently from MUST, who's sole aim is to discredit and disrupt the club's ownership via any means possible, means which include but are not exclusive to: incredible distortion of the truth, relentless and aggressive propaganda campaigns, incitement to boycott, death threats and systematic incitement of blind and unbridled hatred.
You see, the problem is that you don't seem to have an idea about what MUST do.

The allegations in the second paragraph are nothing short of ludicrous - I mean "death threats"? Come on. :D

As for "incitement to boycott", when did this happen? Last time I checked MUST were getting castigated on Red Issue for NOT asking for a boycott.

And the only "blind and unbridled hatred" I'm seeing in this thread is from you. I recommend you take a chill pill before the keys on your computer fall off or you have a heart attack.
 

ciderman9000000

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
29,640
Location
The General
You see, the problem is that you don't seem to have an idea about what MUST do.

The allegations in the second paragraph are nothing short of ludicrous - I mean "death threats"? Come on. :D

As for "incitement to boycott", when did this happen? Last time I checked MUST were getting castigated on Red Issue for NOT asking for a boycott.

And the only "blind and unbridled hatred" I'm seeing in this thread is from you. I recommend you take a chill pill before the keys on your computer fall off or you have a heart attack.
I'm perfectly relaxed, thank you.

Did I say that MUST issued death threats or advocated boycott? No, I didn't. Carry on though.

As for the hatred, MUST repeatedly incited hatred for the Glazers, I don't know how you can argue against that really.
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
I stick to my guns in glossing over your first two points. SAF praising the Glazers doesnt mean anything to me, any more than him telling a journalist that he thinks Evans is the best defender in the world means anything. NOBODY WOULD GIVE FERGIE SHIT.
Are you sure about this? I know a select few who were sharpening their knives when the rumors were put out by Andersred about Fergie potentially benefiting from the IPO.

I also know a few lads who subscribe to a similar view to cider's and they also go to OT. I would expound on the various nuances I have witnessed with this Glazers debate but I wonder what good it will accomplish. I'll just say it's important not to paint folk with the same brush. Too many conversations have turned sour due to poor assumptions.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Are you sure about this? I know a select few who were sharpening their knives when the rumors were put out by Andersred about Fergie potentially benefiting from the IPO.

I also know a few lads who subscribe to a similar view to cider's and they also go to OT. I would expound on the various nuances I have witnessed with this Glazers debate but I wonder what good it will accomplish. I'll just say it's important not to paint folk with the same brush. Too many conversations have turned sour due to poor assumptions.
When I said nobody would give SAF shit, I was talking about owners, the Glazers, relating to an earlier point I made to him.

I say Glazer deserves no credit for "letting SAF get on with his job" - in contrast to the MO of Abramovich for example - because I dont think any owner, even Abramovich, would have interfered with SAF in similar circumstances:

Meddling owners: do you think anyone who takes over the club is going to meddle with SAF? I dont think even Abramovich would. 1) SAF delivers. So why would an owner feck with him? 2) SAF is so well entrenched in the club, it would be suicidal for owners to remove him. We have seen by the G&G campaign how impotent fans are in these situations, there are protests against the Glazers, they dont care, its all hot air to them. But if they had sacked Fergie (and sold Giggs), the protest would not have been limited to some gaudy scarves wrapped around the necks of people wearing replica kits. The anti Glazer sentiment would have been unanimous and the protests 10x the volume and relentlessness. It would have been horrible for them.

My point? The Red Knights wouldnt interfere with SAF any more than the Glazers do. And once SAF goes, expect the Glazers to be the same kind of muppet corporate meddlers that most owners are these days, with the managerial merry-go-round that entails. Not necessarily for a "style of play" but for success - characterised by impatience.
 

ciderman9000000

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
29,640
Location
The General
:lol: It's incredible, but a good case can be made for attributing a lot of the period's troubles directly to Darren Gibson.
 

ravelston

Full Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,624
Location
Boston - the one in the States
I'm perfectly relaxed, thank you.

Did I say that MUST issued death threats or advocated boycott? No, I didn't. Carry on though.

As for the hatred, MUST repeatedly incited hatred for the Glazers, I don't know how you can argue against that really.
Actually you did - go back and read your sentence. I don't think it necessarily detracts from your point though. The death threats were a direct result of the hatred whipped up by MUST and andersred; the boycott idea floated round for a while before Keith Harris proposed it as a tactic in the Red Knights episode (only to be disowned by O'Neil who realised that it would open the Knights up to all sorts of legal problems). The point is that you are judged by the company you keep and MUST have been in some pretty dodgy company.

My problem with MUST is that their sole stated aim is to drive the Glazers out - and they have no idea how to achieve that aim. It would be nice to have a supporters organisation that could have a dialogue with the club on a wide range of issues. Unfortunately Drasdo has painted MUST into a corner where they simply can't do this - and they completely occupy the "represents the supporters" space so there's no way for another group to develop who could develop a dialogue. (And don't talk about using democratic methods to change MUST from within - you'd have a better chance of persuading the Nazis to accept multi-culturalism.)
 

ciderman9000000

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jul 22, 2006
Messages
29,640
Location
The General
Actually you did - go back and read your sentence. I don't think it necessarily detracts from your point though.
Finally, I have much respect for the way the Glazers have conducted themselves professionally throughout constant pressure from groups, most prominently from MUST, who's sole aim was to discredit and disrupt the club's ownership via any means possible, means which include but are not exclusive to: incredible distortion of the truth, relentless and aggressive propaganda campaigns, incitement to boycott, death threats and systematic incitement of blind and unbridled hatred.
I said that there were groups involved of which MUST were the most prominent, which is perfectly accurate. I never said that all the behaviour listed came directly from MUST themselves, though much of it did, and perhaps even all of it indirectly as you allude to in the rest of your post.
 

ravelston

Full Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,624
Location
Boston - the one in the States
When I said nobody would give SAF shit, I was talking about owners, the Glazers, relating to an earlier point I made to him.

I say Glazer deserves no credit for "letting SAF get on with his job" - in contrast to the MO of Abramovich for example - because I dont think any owner, even Abramovich, would have interfered with SAF in similar circumstances:
Apparently SAF does think they deserve credit and he hasn't been shy about saying it - and, by implication, he's been pretty scathing about working with the plc management. It's clear that they did interfere with him.
 

ravelston

Full Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,624
Location
Boston - the one in the States
I said that there were groups involved of which MUST were the most prominent, which is perfectly accurate. I never said that all the behaviour listed came directly from MUST themselves, though much of it did, and perhaps even all of it indirectly as you allude to in the rest of your post.
The proximity of "MUST" to "who's" (which should be "whose") and the use of the singular verb tie MUST to the string of offenses.

I know, it's a stupid, picky point - my only excuse is a lot of years as an academic. And, as I said, it doesn't detract from your point with which I agree. (I also happen to agree with most of the rest of your post.)
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Apparently SAF does think they deserve credit and he hasn't been shy about saying it - and, by implication, he's been pretty scathing about working with the plc management. It's clear that they did interfere with him.
As I said before, I dont believe what SAF says about this or, frankly, anything else. You dont need to believe what a man tells journalists to believe he is a great manager.

SAF never said anything negative about the PLC until it was gone. Now he isnt saying anything bad about the Glazers either.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,232
Location
@United_Hour
People talk about the Glazers siphoning money out of the club but not enough about the opportunity we had as fans to prevent such a scenario occurring. I wonder why. Obviously, it's too late now but it's no reason to forget we were a factor in allowing this to happen. As a matter of fact, if the Glazers didn't buy us out, it's quite possible someone else would. However, that's a discussion for another day.
Totally agree, in fact it would be interesting to know what the members of the 'The Red Knights' were doing when the Glazers took over - being United supporters with deeper pockets and contacts than your usual fan they could have made a big difference at the time. Perhaps they did try, who knows?
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
Actually you did - go back and read your sentence. I don't think it necessarily detracts from your point though. The death threats were a direct result of the hatred whipped up by MUST and andersred; the boycott idea floated round for a while before Keith Harris proposed it as a tactic in the Red Knights episode (only to be disowned by O'Neil who realised that it would open the Knights up to all sorts of legal problems). The point is that you are judged by the company you keep and MUST have been in some pretty dodgy company.

My problem with MUST is that their sole stated aim is to drive the Glazers out - and they have no idea how to achieve that aim. It would be nice to have a supporters organisation that could have a dialogue with the club on a wide range of issues. Unfortunately Drasdo has painted MUST into a corner where they simply can't do this - and they completely occupy the "represents the supporters" space so there's no way for another group to develop who could develop a dialogue. (And don't talk about using democratic methods to change MUST from within - you'd have a better chance of persuading the Nazis to accept multi-culturalism.)
That's a very basic understanding of the situation if I may say so.

MUST have always been the least radical of the many United supporters groups. Hence they get shit from the more radical ones and are constantly attacked in the likes of Red Issue. MUST didn't even come up with the Green and Gold idea - but they ran with it because it was, and remains, a fantastic way in which fans can express their opposition to the Glazer ownership and/or the debt. No need for boycotts, no need for death threats, no need even for offensive chanting.

On the point of MUST's stated aim, it's not to just to drive the Glazers out. It's to gain a meaningful ownership stake in the club for its fans. That's its remit as the club's official supporters trust recognised by Supporters Direct, DCMS and UEFA.

As for them occupying the "represents the supporters" space. Actually that's not really their remit. That's more the bag of IMUSA (who are the recognised independent fan group by the Football Supporters Federation). MUST do, however, do some of this work, such as pressurising Liverpool FC to increase United's ticket allocation.

As for democracy, both MUST and IMUSA are democratic organisations. Again, this is one of things that the likes of SD and DCMS are quite keen on (as you'd expect). Any member can put themselves up for committee or board. Make a good case and you'll get on - last time I looked, 100 votes would get you onto the committee of MUST.
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
Totally agree, in fact it would be interesting to know what the members of the 'The Red Knights' were doing when the Glazers took over - being United supporters with deeper pockets and contacts than your usual fan they could have made a big difference at the time. Perhaps they did try, who knows?
Well Jim O'Neill was on the United board was he not? Opposing the takeover?
 

ravelston

Full Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2010
Messages
2,624
Location
Boston - the one in the States
As I said before, I dont believe what SAF says about this or, frankly, anything else. You dont need to believe what a man tells journalists to believe he is a great manager.

SAF never said anything negative about the PLC until it was gone. Now he isnt saying anything bad about the Glazers either.
He also didn't say anything positive - in marked contrast to the current ownership. Given the harassment he received in the last couple of years of the plc it's not surprising that he would view the Glazers as a breath of fresh air.

I'm still amazed by the extent to which the culture of "SAF is a liar" has grown up simply because he expresses views that differ from those that outsiders feel he ought to have. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? That having direct experience might give a certain validity to his views. Of course not - how can he not see what's obvious to a person with no direct knowledge.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,232
Location
@United_Hour
Well Jim O'Neill was on the United board was he not? Opposing the takeover?
IIRC he was a non-exec director at some point - I can't remember when he left or what involvement he had by 2005.

Edit: Just checked, he was apparently involved from 2004 to 2005 so I guess whatever he was recommending wasnt enough or too late or the wrong strategy.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
He also didn't say anything positive - in marked contrast to the current ownership. Given the harassment he received in the last couple of years of the plc it's not surprising that he would view the Glazers as a breath of fresh air.

I'm still amazed by the extent to which the culture of "SAF is a liar" has grown up simply because he expresses views that differ from those that outsiders feel he ought to have. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? That having direct experience might give a certain validity to his views. Of course not - how can he not see what's obvious to a person with no direct knowledge.
Yes of course it has. My "SAF is a liar" position is not really a product of me not liking what he says about the Glazers. Its more an extension of the whole "mind games" thing we all know he is partial to, which is saying things for effect. When he talks about his players, when he talks about prospective transfers, when he talks about contracts, he says things that are demonstrably - with hindsight - not true.

I dont think SAF is a man who believes telling journalists the truth is a part of his job description. That is an observation, not a criticism. (If I wanted to criticise him I might focus more on his BBC boycott which I thought was fecking childish and out of order, if he thinks he or his son are above being investigated for what were clearly questionable acts then he is wrong.)

He puts the club first. And bigging up the Glazers is that in a way, because having anti Glazer chanting during games is not a great atmosphere for the players to work in.

And as for not saying anything positive about the PLC, he didnt really need to, did he? The PLC wasnt as contentious or divisive an issue, so he never felt the need to speak out about it. I imagine if everyone was happy with the Glazers and there was no opposition he wouldnt have come out and said anything about it - why would he?
 

ralphie88

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
14,356
Location
Stretford
And bigging up the Glazers is that in a way, because having anti Glazer chanting during games is not a great atmosphere for the players to work in.
I'd agree with you re Fergie. Although our record during the anti-Glazer protests was actually second to none!
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
He also didn't say anything positive - in marked contrast to the current ownership. Given the harassment he received in the last couple of years of the plc it's not surprising that he would view the Glazers as a breath of fresh air.

I'm still amazed by the extent to which the culture of "SAF is a liar" has grown up simply because he expresses views that differ from those that outsiders feel he ought to have. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong? That having direct experience might give a certain validity to his views. Of course not - how can he not see what's obvious to a person with no direct knowledge.
It truly is fascinating. Something which makes me worry about our sense of idealism.
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,232
Location
@United_Hour
Yes of course it has. My "SAF is a liar" position is not really a product of me not liking what he says about the Glazers. Its more an extension of the whole "mind games" thing we all know he is partial to, which is saying things for effect. When he talks about his players, when he talks about prospective transfers, when he talks about contracts, he says things that are demonstrably - with hindsight - not true.

I dont think SAF is a man who believes telling journalists the truth is a part of his job description. That is an observation, not a criticism. (If I wanted to criticise him I might focus more on his BBC boycott which I thought was fecking childish and out of order, if he thinks he or his son are above being investigated for what were clearly questionable acts then he is wrong.)

He puts the club first. And bigging up the Glazers is that in a way, because having anti Glazer chanting during games is not a great atmosphere for the players to work in.

And as for not saying anything positive about the PLC, he didnt really need to, did he? The PLC wasnt as contentious or divisive an issue, so he never felt the need to speak out about it. I imagine if everyone was happy with the Glazers and there was no opposition he wouldnt have come out and said anything about it - why would he?
I was trying to avoid getting into the same old discussions in this thread but I really hate all this 'SAF is a liar' stuff so feel compelled to respond!

I think it is a jump too far for people to go from Fergie's media mindgames about transfers, injuries etc (which as you note he does for the benefit of the club) to deciding that virtually everything he says in public is untrue!
Whether you admit it or not, Im sure that your position is at least partly influenced by the fact that you can't accept that Fergie is telling the truth on this particular issue as it doesnt fit your POV.

Some of our fans find it difficult to accept Fergie's comments about the Glazers, but the fact is that Fergie's priorities are not exactly the same as that of the fans, his focus is solely on building a successful team and he has been given free reign to do that.
For me this goes beyond a question of the owners simply not interfering with the manager and letting him get on with it - can you not see that Fergie has actually been given a lot more power on footballing matters than he ever had before at the club? It is an important change behind the scenes that many seem unwilling to recognise.

So it is no wonder that from Fergie's perspective they have been good owners because he is now in complete control, and it is no coincidence that we have subsequently had a period of unprecedented success.
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
When I said nobody would give SAF shit, I was talking about owners, the Glazers, relating to an earlier point I made to him.

I say Glazer deserves no credit for "letting SAF get on with his job" - in contrast to the MO of Abramovich for example - because I dont think any owner, even Abramovich, would have interfered with SAF in similar circumstances:
I think we all like to think that mate but I'm one of those who think Fergie wasn't too happy with the PLC. I know he didn't have the greatest relationship with Edwards and like I said before, based on the circumstances, it's quite possible we would have been bought out by someone.

Regarding Abramovich, I'm not sure. It could go either way. Roman isn't necessarily the most patient and what Roman wants, Roman gets. It's well known how involved he likes to be. He came into Chelsea's dressing room when they were going through a 'crisis'. Now with SAF involved, who knows how that would turn out. IMO, there's room for trouble. I just see a butting of heads but it's simply speculation.

In all my time of following United let alone football, I don't think I've ever come across such an interesting and perplexing manager as Sir Alex. If you wanted to, you could write a dissertation on how he handles the media and what he says to the press. It's something else! So you can continue to believe it doesn't mean anything but I choose to sit in the middle. Simply because with this man, you just never really know do you? We say 'classic SAF' but I'm sure there's still an element of doubt with what we think he's actually doing.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
I think it is a jump too far for people to go from Fergie's media mindgames about transfers, injuries etc (which as you note he does for the benefit of the club) to deciding that virtually everything he says in public is untrue!
Whether you admit it or not, Im sure that your position is at least partly influenced by the fact that you can't accept that Fergie is telling the truth on this particular issue as it doesnt fit your POV
Fair enough. And you may be right to some extent. But not entirely. When SAF sells Ronaldo for 80m and doesn't spend that money, saying the money is available but there is no value in the market, and we are half a billion in debt, I don't believe it. That to me seems to be a rational evaluation of the facts.
 

Platato

Psst!
Joined
Jul 2, 2012
Messages
4,220
Fair enough. And you may be right to some extent. But not entirely. When SAF sells Ronaldo for 80m and doesn't spend that money, saying the money is available but there is no value in the market, and we are half a billion in debt, I don't believe it. That to me seems to be a rational evaluation of the facts.
Why not? do you know what Fergie means when he says value?
 
Joined
Jul 26, 2006
Messages
14,821
They were dreamers trying to get the club on the cheap

They never had anywhere near the funds needed to get close to the valuation of the club or what he Glazers would want to sell. I suspect they realised that they had no chance of getting it for the price they wanted and slunk off, particularly as they realised they probably would have had little chance of driving down the price through boycotts

As I say, dreamers
 

Maplered

Full Member
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
578
Location
Prescott, Ont. Canada
As far as Fergie goes under the Edwards regime I think he felt undercut by Edwards & Kiddo suggesting transfers. He has a free rein with the Glazers, his is from purely a football point of view and worries less about the business part.

I just think that many CAF members get too hung up on the Glazers, and are not interested enough in the football
 

Rood

nostradamus like gloater
Scout
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
21,232
Location
@United_Hour
Fair enough. And you may be right to some extent. But not entirely. When SAF sells Ronaldo for 80m and doesn't spend that money, saying the money is available but there is no value in the market, and we are half a billion in debt, I don't believe it. That to me seems to be a rational evaluation of the facts.
Well I disagree and don't feel it is a rational evaluation of the facts at all, but I really can't be arsed to discuss 'the Ronaldo money' as it was done to death years ago.
 

Slevs

likes to play with penises
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
28,203
Location
Boyo
Think you'll actually find that most who DID care, got fed up with Drasdo and the way the campaign was going.
Where was the campaign headed?


Protests will inevitably start again so long as the Glazers are in charge because they are fundamentally detested at Old Trafford and in Manchester more generally and have done so much damage to the club. But there's no point pissing in the wind if there's no possibility of success. I expect protests will follow not problems, but potential solutions.
Name some of these damages please.

It's my view that in ten/fifteen/twenty years time the majority of United fans will look back to this particular time in our history and recognise the Glazers as being decent owners. I think that progress is already being made in this regard.
I completely agree. People don't know the true value of what we have now.

Cheers for the considered response.

Point 4: I guess if you live in Tampa, almost never come to games, never give interviews and never engage with fans, that might come across to some as commendable behavior. Dont agree with you on that point. I take it as evidence of their lack of interest in the views of the fans, their total focus on making money.

OK I think I am ready to leave it here with you now, and agree to disagree.

Part of your problem with them is that they never come to Old Trafford? I fail to see how that can be considered a downfall of the Glazers given their good ownership philosophy. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it just looks like it's another made up excuse to hate these evil moustached Glazers.

As far as Fergie goes under the Edwards regime I think he felt undercut by Edwards & Kiddo suggesting transfers. He has a free rein with the Glazers, his is from purely a football point of view and worries less about the business part.

I just think that many CAF members get too hung up on the Glazers, and are not interested enough in the football
I completely agree. I think Sir Alex is very comfortable with e current ownership. The Glazers have left him in complete control and have no interfered one bit ala Abrahamovic. People just won't know how decent owners we have now until we get a couple of incompetent fools in charge when the Glazers inevitably sell.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Well I disagree and don't feel it is a rational evaluation of the facts at all, but I really can't be arsed to discuss 'the Ronaldo money' as it was done to death years ago.
Again, fair enough. I wouldn't bring up the Ronaldo money but I'm being asked to justify myself for not believing SAF, that is a big part of the genesis of it.
 

Adebesi

Full Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
19,159
Location
Sanctity, like a cat, abhors filth.
Part of your problem with them is that they never come to Old Trafford? I fail to see how that can be considered a downfall of the Glazers given their good ownership philosophy. I'm sorry if this offends you, but it just looks like it's another made up excuse to hate these evil moustached Glazers.
Actually its not particularly. I can see why it would look that way from my comment without going back through the conversation further. Cider said he thought they handled the pressure of MUST hatred really well. I was just saying they are never at OT so it can't be that big a deal for them.